by therube » Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:27 am
Sorry, but I see no difference between... hmm... wonder if anything did actually change on the NoScript end?
Well, simply by copying the 65 "upgraded" to 66 Profile into a new directory, then opening that with 65...
And looking at new 65 Profile...
Sorry, but I see no difference between 65 & 66 (using the 100K list).
Likewise, on my lessor machine, I see nowhere near the delay that the OP is getting.
So...
NoScript already used storage-sync.sqlite as it was...
I'm thinking these changes made to 66 didn't really affect NoScript?
Yes, I'm thinking that is right - NoScript is totally unaffected by these "storage" changes implemented for FF 66.
Oh... wait a minute...
Well it does set up in /storage/ (something like, moz-extension+++31f7607b-daed-498e-a03e-34b10111d853^userContextId=4294967295) [I wonder if userContextId is used for tracking?] but it's (essentially) empty (as in no real data ends up there), is irrelevant to NoScript.
Sorry, but I see no difference between... hmm... wonder if anything did actually change on the NoScript end?
Well, simply by copying the 65 "upgraded" to 66 Profile into a new directory, then opening that with 65...
And looking at new 65 Profile...
Sorry, but I see no difference between 65 & 66 (using the 100K list).
Likewise, on my lessor machine, I see nowhere near the delay that the OP is getting.
So...
NoScript already used storage-sync.sqlite as it was...
I'm thinking these changes made to 66 didn't really affect NoScript?
Yes, I'm thinking that is right - NoScript is totally unaffected by these "storage" changes implemented for FF 66.
Oh... wait a minute...
Well it does set up in /storage/ (something like, moz-extension+++31f7607b-daed-498e-a03e-34b10111d853^userContextId=4294967295) [I wonder if userContextId is used for tracking?] but it's (essentially) empty (as in no real data ends up there), is irrelevant to NoScript.